Lessons from Texas A&M’s turmoil
Tax dollars should not fund LGBTQ indoctrination
Former Texas A&M University President Mark A. Welsh (left) speaks in College Station, Texas, on Aug. 30. Associated Press / Photo by Sam Craft, file

Full access isn’t far.
We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.
Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.
Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.
LET'S GOAlready a member? Sign in.
The recent resignation of Mark A. Welsh III as president of Texas A&M University after the uproar over a children’s literature class and “gender ideology” instruction ought to prompt a serious reckoning—not only in College Station, but across America’s college campuses. What happened at Texas A&M is not an isolated event but a symptom of the serious issues plaguing higher education in America.
It prompts the question: What sort of education are tax dollars paying for?
Texas A&M—my alma mater—is a highly-ranked state school. It is a well-regarded research institution and offers top programs in engineering, agriculture, and veterinary science. From its inception, Texas A&M has maintained its commitment to the sciences. It’s known for being friendly to conservatives and is steeped in wonderful traditions. The culture on campus is Burkean in the sense that the permanent things—faith, family, living a life of integrity—matter.
Still, over the summer, an English class set off a firestorm when a student recorded a disagreement she had with her professor, Melissa McCoul, over gender ideology. The student recorded the exchange in which she suggested that teaching gender identity violated her religious beliefs and was “not entirely sure [it] is legal” because President Trump’s executive orders recognize only two biological sexes. The professor disagreed and told the student she could leave class.
The senior lecturer was also recorded teaching her students the “gender unicorn,” a graphic used to introduce gender identity concepts. The graphic promotes the idea that gender identity, gender expression, and sex are all different concepts—ones that children may pick and choose from at will like they would a school outfit.
The syllabus for the course mandated that students read nine books, a mix of required and elective texts. That mix requires students to read a minimum of three LGBTQ-themed books including Princess Princess Ever After, a fairy tale about a romance between two princesses. The Amazon profile says of the book: “It’s super cute, super queer, and feminist as all get out.” Students are also required to read Jude Saves the World, a coming-of-age novel about a child who believes he is nonbinary (a child who identifies as neither male or female).
Students in the course may select between either The King of the Dragonflies, about a young boy who is romantically attracted to another boy, or Hurricane Child, about a girl who is attracted to—you guessed it—a girl. Students can also choose to read Mirror to Mirror, a novel about twin sisters, one of whom is uncomfortable with her sex and also harms herself. Amazon states that the books are appropriate for children as young as six to eight years.
Professor McCoul’s class syllabus differed markedly from the “guide post” syllabus shared by the university. That syllabus focused on classic children’s literature like The Cat in the Hat, Where the Wild Things Are, and Esperanza Rising. Only one book used in the course addressed discrimination, and none expressly dealt with gender identity or sexuality. That makes a lot of sense when the focus of a course is on material suitable for young children and adolescents.
Ultimately, and in the face of intense political pressure, President Welsh fired the lecturer and demoted both the dean and the department head. The university claims that Professor McCoul’s course did not align with its syllabus and failed to alert students to its controversial content. Days later, President Welsh also resigned, with the Board of Regents explaining the need for new leadership.
The mission of higher education is to teach, not indoctrinate. If universities can’t remain faithful to that basic promise, why do they exist? Academic freedom has never been a license for incoherence—it doesn’t mean that a professor is entitled to teach her students whatever she likes. While a professor can—and should—present both sides of an issue, promoting gender ideology for children as young as eight should never be part of a core English curriculum.

These daily articles have become part of my steady diet. —Barbara
Sign up to receive the WORLD Opinions email newsletter each weekday for sound commentary from trusted voices.Read the Latest from WORLD Opinions
Carl R. Trueman | Graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral displays the Church of England’s spiritual decline
John Schweiker Shelton | The long-term impact of Charlie Kirk’s murder may be huge—or it may already be waning
Bethel McGrew | Israelis express joy at the return of hostages, but many terrorists are also now free
A.S. Ibrahim | Trump’s Gaza peace deal has the potential to define the Middle East
Please wait while we load the latest comments...
Comments
Please register, subscribe, or log in to comment on this article.